Yearly Archives: 2003

Former Guantanamo Inmate sues US In Pakistan

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Former Guantanamo inmate sues US

A man who was imprisoned by the US military at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is suing the Pakistani and US governments for damages worth over $10m.

Pakistani cleric Mohammed Sagheer was seized by US troops fighting in Afghanistan in 2001.

He spent roughly a year with other suspected al-Qaeda and Taleban operatives in the US military prison.

His lawyers say he is suing for the mental and physical torture he endured at Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay.

'Treated like an animal'

Mr Sagheer filed his suit in an Islamabad court on Tuesday.

Lawyers acting for him said the case could be heard in a Pakistani court because Pakistan's interior ministry is one of the defendants.

In the first case of its kind, Mr Sagheer described his arrest by American authorities as illegal and his treatment at the prison camp in Guantanamo Bay as extremely inhuman.

He says he was kept for more than a year in a prison cell that was like a cage meant for animals.

During this period he says he was treated in the worst possible manner and was repeatedly interrogated about his links to al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

Despite insisting that he no ties to the Islamic militant group, Mr Sagheer says he was punished by the authorities for what they saw as his lack of co-operation.

After being released by the Americans, Mr Sagheer says he was sent back to Pakistan, where he spent a few more days in detention.

The court has decided to hold a preliminary hearing for the case in the third week of December.

I suspect that the US will plead sovereign immunity and act of state, if it even shows up to defend. As the act of state doctrine has roots in the comity among nations, I imagine that Pakistan would ordinarily respect this claim…

On the other hand, if the Pakistanti court were to decide that the 'torture' alleged violated fundamental norms of international law, it might not dismiss the claim out of hand, as it is sometimes suggested that act of state ought not to protect against fundamental violations of international law.

Two earlier BBC stories on this are here and here.

Posted in Guantanamo | 1 Comment

M.K.B. v. Warden, 03-6747 (Secret habeas) Latest

AP reports ,

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Bush administration to explain the secrecy surrounding the detention of one of the immigrants arrested after the Sept. 11 attacks.

The administration has refused to release the names and other details of hundreds of foreigners rounded up after the attacks, arguing that a blanket secrecy policy is needed to protect national security.

One of those immigrants, known only as M.K.B., challenged his detention. But even that has been shrouded in secrecy.

His appeal has reached the Supreme Court, only there is little written evidence that his case exists. Lower courts sealed all the legal filings, as well as the records of how his case was handled. The proceedings were held in secret.

That is unconstitutional, federal public defender Paul Rashkind of Miami argued in the case from Florida.

The Supreme Court should intervene, Rashkind wrote in an appeal, “to preserve and protect the public's common-law and First Amendment rights to know, but also to reinforce those rights in a time of increased national suspicion about the free flow of information and debate.”

The administration told justices last month that it did not plan to file a response to the appeal. In a brief notice released Tuesday, the court said it has told the administration to give its side anyway. There is no specific deadline for the reply.

Hasn't shown up on the docket yet.

Posted in Civil Liberties | Comments Off on M.K.B. v. Warden, 03-6747 (Secret habeas) Latest

The Tyranny of the Majority (Party)

Just a quick break from a busy day to note TOMPAINE.com – Criminal Punishment: Rep. David Obey (D-Wisc.) writes, ostensibly to the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor-Health and Human Services-Education, of the House Committee on Appropriations (found via Mediajunkie), about a Republian plan to discriminate against the inhabitants of districts represented by Democrats who vote against Republican legislation.

Continue reading

Posted in Politics: US | 2 Comments

Novell to Buy SUSE Linux

NOVELL: Novell Announces Agreement to Acquire Leading Enterprise Linux Technology Company SUSE LINUX. (Via Slashdot.)

Ok, this is going to get interesting. Now Novell , which recently acquired one of the best MS Exchange-compatible desktops for linux (Ximian), adds one of the top business-oriented Linux distributions. SUSE is dominant in the European business market, sort of like Redhat is here (although I'm attracted to Mandrake for home use. as it supposedly has the most and easiest drivers). Roll it with Novell's network software and you have the makings of a super business package I might even be able to sell to the nobody-ever-got-fired-for-buying-Microsoft crowd here.

If only Novell had kept WordPerfect and could release an updated Linux version.

Posted in Software | Comments Off on Novell to Buy SUSE Linux

Of Military Voters and the Army Times Poll

One meme getting some play this week is the idea that the military vote may be up for grabs. The best exposition of this I've seen is Benjamin Wallace-Wells's article in the Washington Monthly, Corps Voters, which is well worth a read.

Dramatic confirmation of this hypothesis appears to be found in this Army Times Presidential Poll. When I visited it, the numbers were:

Bush 31%
Clark 22%
Kucinich 16% [Shurley shome mishtake -ed.]
Dean 12%
Edwards 10%
Kerry 4%
Braun 2%
Sharpton 1%
Lieberman < 1%
Gephardt < 1%

If that were right it would mean that almost 70% would choose a Democrat over Bush. And that doesn't mean the conservative Lieberman, either.

But wait! This is not a scientific poll at all. By all appearances, it's just a tally of responses from one of those horrible unscientific 'polls' on the Army Times homepage. From that page there's no way to tell whether the 'poll' is limited to people from, say, .mil addresses, or whether we all get to vote. Nor is it clear how or whether the web site has anything in place to block repeat voting.

In other words, it's totally meaningless without some evidence that the voters are only servicepeople, and that they only get to vote once each. And even then, since the results are based on a self-selected sample, they would only be suggestive at best.

Continue reading

Posted in Politics: US | 1 Comment

More on Justice Brown

Prof. Bainbridge has a comments to the original Brown item here.

Posted in Law: Everything Else | 1 Comment